ike King grew up in Kanawha County, West
Virginia, in the heart of coal country, where
miners and their families lived in dust-covered coal camps and local waterways such as Morris
Creek in Montgomery were fouled by pollution.
"The few times we had fish try to come up the river,
their gills would actually fall off due to the high acidity of
the water," he recalls. "The water was orange and white,
with a horrible smell of rotten eggs."
King's description of Morris Creek a decade ago is
in stark contrast to the condition of the creek today. The
listing of the creek in 1996 as "impaired" under the Clean
Water Act didn't just trigger more stringent limits on
pollution discharges in the watershed, it also provided
the opportunity for King and others in the community
to initiate a number of projects to improve water quality
with federal matching funds.

Today, the water in Morris Creek is improving, fish
and other aquatic animals are making a comeback, and
King says the stream cleanup projects in his community
are setting an example that is "helping others to understand stewardship and how to take care of their own property."
Thousands of similar stories could be told about how
the Clean Water Act has made a real difference in the lives
of Americans over the 40 years since it was signed into law.
Amid the atmosphere of partisan rancor and inflammatory rhetoric that surrounds any debate about
environmental laws and regulations today, the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act provides an occasion
to recall the strong bipartisan commitment this nation
once made to restore and maintain the "chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waters" four
decades ago. It also presents an occasion to look at the

As encouraging as this kind of progress is, however, America is a long way from fulfilling the goals and
promise of the Clean Water Act. The original goals set
by Congress were to rapidly phase out “discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts" and thereby eliminate most water pollution by 1985. Today, 27 years after the initial target date, we’re nowhere near achieving that goal. In fact, an investigative report by the New
York Times in 2009 not only found that the Clean Water
Act had been violated more than 506,000 times between
2004 and 2007, but that the annual number of violations
had actually increased by 16 percent over that time4.
While the Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire
and Lake Erie is no longer considered “dead,”5 as was the
case before the Clean
Water Act was passed
into law, the EPA still
estimates that 850 billion gallons of sewage
are discharged into
streams every year6, and
that more than 40 percent of U.S. streams are
still considered in poor
biological condition7.

A hand covered in polluted sludge from the
Cuyahoga River prior to 1972. A fire on that river
ultimately lead to the creation of the Clean Water
Act. Photo courtesy of the Cleveland Plain Dealer

Despite the clear
evidence of the need
to strengthen efforts to
clean up our streams, the Clean Water Act and other laws
that protect America’s waters are facing an unprecedented
assault in Congress. During the 112th Congress alone, 38
bills were introduced and passed in the House of Representatives to weaken clean water laws or to undermine the
ability of federal agencies to enforce them. Fortunately,
most were not introduced or passed in the Senate.
No part of the country has seen a greater erosion of

Photo by Jamie Goodman

Photo by John D. Wilson

Photo by Rich Stevens

Photo: Eric Engbretson, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service

multitude of ways that the Clean Water Act has improved
the quality of life for ordinary Americans, from providing entrepreneurs with opportunities to start businesses
to ensuring that thousands of communities have access
to clean and safe drinking water.

Some of the
successes of
the Clean
Water Act
in the past
40 years
• The number
of Americans re
ceiving clean
drinking water ha
s increased from
79 percent in
1993 to 92 percen
t in 20071
• More than 2,00
0 water bodies
identified as
impaired in 2002
now meet water
quality standards2

support for clean water protections over the past 40 years
than the Southeast. All but one of the 65 representatives
from southeastern states voted to support the Clean Water Act in 1972, but in the last two years, representatives
of these states have voted in favor of weakening clean
water laws 75 percent of the time. Among the eight states
examined in this report, Alabama’s delegation was the
most hostile to clean water laws, voting in favor of weakening them 87 percent of the time.
This report describes in detail the 112th Congress’s
unprecedented assault on clean water laws and the support for that agenda among the delegations of eight
southeastern states. The purpose is not to berate those
members of Congress, but to remind them of the real
difference that the Clean Water Act is making in the
lives of their constituents. From oyster farms in Virginia
Beach to dairy farms in the Carolinas, the Clean Water
Act is creating jobs and business opportunities, restoring
fish and duck populations and ensuring that more and
more Americans enjoy the fundamental right of access
to clean and safe water.
As former Congressman James Oberstar said in a recent interview, “NASA has spent billions over the years
sending men to the moon and on dozens of other space
missions, and very often the thing they most wanted to
discover on these missions was fresh water. That should
tell us what we need to know about protecting the fresh
water we have here on earth.”

to
StarNews file pho

An Overview of the 112th Congress

W

hen the 112th Congress convened on January 3,
2011, it marked the beginning of an unprecedented assault on our nation’s clean water laws. According to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
the U.S. House of Representatives voted 38 times to weaken the
Clean Water Act and other laws protecting water resources in
just the past two years.
The first round of anti-clean water votes were in the form
of riders to the budget bill, H.R. 1. While none were signed
into law, these riders would have eliminated funding for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to conduct meaningful
oversight of mountaintop removal coal mining operations in
Appalachia, implement a cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay
and waterways in Florida, and control discharges that would
have an “unacceptable adverse effect” on water, fish or wildlife.
The House budget bill, though later amended and improved by
the Senate, set a drastic tone by pitting environmental concerns
against powerful corporate interests.
More bills aimed at weakening clean
water protections soon followed. The
House attempted to remove the EPA’s
ability to regulate pesticide pollution
(H.R. 872). Another bill would block
states from regulating the discharge of
ballast water (H.R. 2838), even though
invasive species are increasingly infesting many aquatic ecosystems. Another
bill attempted to undermine California’s
control of its water resources and envi-

Appaalchian Water Watch photo

Photo by Matt Wasson

Dirty Politics and the Clean Water Act

ronmental protections (H.R. 1837), exposing critical salmon habitat to harm and opening up water rights to the highest bidders.
Other bills passed by the House attempted to stymie EPA’s
ability to enforce clean water laws enacted during previous sessions of Congress. Two of these measures (H.R. 2354 and 5325)
would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from protecting
certain streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act, and
prevented the EPA from ever proposing a rule specifically to
protect those waters. Another bill would block any major rulemakings by the EPA unless both houses of Congress approve
it within 70 legislative days (H.R. 10). The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010), tried to create significant hurdles
to adopting clean water regulations and required the EPA to
choose the least costly alternative in selecting a rule, rather than
the most protective for public health and the environment.
Some of the bills passed by the House were designed simply
to perpetuate the misleading notion that environmental protections cost jobs. One act stated that, unless unemployment dropped below six
percent, no regulation to protect the environment could be passed (H.R. 4078).
Another bill required additional analyses for all proposed EPA rules that could
have an impact, no matter how indirect,
on small businesses (H.R. 527).
The Clean Water Act created a
framework for water permitting based
on federal-state partnership in per-

Biggest Clean Water Threats in the 112th Congress
Americans are fortunate that none of these bills have
become law, but we should all be alarmed that they gained
enough traction to pass the House of Representatives.
In May 2011, Rep. John Mica (R-FL), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced the
Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act.
H.R. 2018:
H.R. 2018 was designed to prevent the EPA
Eliminating EPA from revising weak state water quality stanOversight of the dards or issuing new ones unless an individClean Water Act ual state concurs, even if the standard is insufficient to protect human health or aquatic life. According
to the agency, the bill would “overturn almost 40 years of
federal legislation by preventing EPA from protecting public
health and water quality.”

Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) introduced H.R. 2401, the Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on the Nation Act
(TRAIN Act) in the fall of 2011. The TRAIN
H.R. 2401:
Act called for duplicative analyses of the
Needlessly
costs, but not the benefits, of several EPA
Delaying Rules
public health safeguards. It also allowed for
the indefinite delay of EPA’s Cross-State Air
That Would
Protect Our Water Pollution Rule and the Mercury and Air Toxic
Standards, two safeguards that prevent up
from Mercury
to 11,000 premature deaths, 5,000 heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks and 5,700 hospital and emergency room visits every year — all while reducing the number
of children and pregnant women exposed to toxic mercury.

mitting and enforcement activities. The federal government,
through the EPA, establishes guidelines, objectives and limits, and provides technical and financial assistance, including
matching grants to local governments to build wastewater and
stormwater treatment systems. The states issue and monitor
permits required by the Clean Water Act and set most specific
water quality standards, while the federal law provides a level
playing field throughout the nation.
If the federal government cannot enforce and support the
Clean Water Act, history suggests that states will soon engage
in a “race to the bottom,” as politically connected polluters are
able to exert greater influence over state regulators and legislators who control the purse strings of state agencies.

The Recycling Coal Combustion Residuals Accessibility Act,
sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-WV), would ensure
that utilities can continue disposing of toxic
coal ash, the waste generated from burn- H.R. 2273:
ing coal, in unsafe dams like the one that Congress Prevents
failed at a Tennessee Valley Authority plant EPA from Issuing
in Kingston, Tenn., in 2008. The law cre- Science-Based
ates an unenforceable program for states Guidelines on
to manage coal ash and would allow coal- Toxic Coal Ash
fired units to avoid health-protective measures such as fixing unsafe coal ash dumps, cleaning up
contaminated sites, or closing leaking and unstable coal ash
ponds and landfills. The bill would also permanently prevent
EPA from finalizing rules to regulate over 1,000 aging coal ash
dumps nationwide.

The “Stop the War on Coal” bill, sponsored by Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) is a repackaging of all the bills noted above, as
well as an addition. The bill would also prohibit the Office of
Surface Mining, Reclamation and Enforcement
from issuing any proposed regulation under H.R. 3409:
the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Congress
Act that would reduce coal mine employment Declares War
by as much as one job, reduce taxes received on Water
from coal mining by as much as one dollar, or
reduce the amount of coal available for mining by one ton.
The bill even eliminated the agency’s ability to designate an
area as unsuitable for surface coal mining, which is one of the
most important protections available under the mining law.

In total, the House of Representatives in the 112th Congress voted to:

≈ Strip EPA of its authority under the Clean Water Act

to set water quality standards or enforce pollutant
discharge limits in states that fail to implement the law;

≈ Eliminate EPA’s authority to veto “dredge and fill”

permits for mountaintop removal mines and other
activities;

≈ Deny EPA funding to protect wetlands and

tributaries that flow into navigable waters; and

≈ Block the EPA from using the Clean Water Act to

regulate the discharge of pesticides into rivers, lakes,
and streams.

Virginia

V

irginia is home to more than 50,000 miles of
rivers and streams and 150,000 acres of lakes
and reservoirs. Just over one-third of the rivers and
streams have been assessed by the state in 2010,
with two-thirds found to be impaired for one or
more criteria. The most common causes of stream
impairment are high levels of E. coli, mercury and
dissolved oxygen. About five percent of impaired
streams and rivers have been cleaned up.

Votes Against Clean Water

While Virginia's water division has been more
successful than neighboring states at cleaning up
impaired rivers and streams, state legislators in
2011 voted to dramatically restrict the agency's
ability under the Clean Water Act to protect public
health and the environment from pollution from
surface coal mines. Recently enacted legislation
limits the ability of state regulators to use water
quality testing to make permitting and enforcement
decisions involving pollution discharges from coal
strip mines.

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplica-

The support for bills to weaken clean water protection shown by state legislators has largely been
mirrored by Virginia's members of Congress who
collectively voted in favor of federal bills that would
weaken clean water protections 65 percent of the
time during the 112th Congress. This is in stark contrast to the unanimous support for the Clean Water
Act by Virginia's representatives in 1972.

SCORE: ....................................................45%

Percentage of representatives from Virginia that voted to
weaken clean water laws in the 112th Congress.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following
three bills plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface
Mining rule that would protect streams from mountaintop
removal coal mining impacts.

SCORE:.....................................................45%

tive interagency panel to study the economic impacts of
several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing
potential delays for safeguards for up to six years.

SCORE: ................................................... 64%

H.R. 2273 — The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act would stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash
disposal in favor of a non-enforceable state program.

SCORE: ................................................... 64%

H.R. 2018 — The Clean Water Federalism Act would
remove the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act,
dramatically weakening clean water protections.

Overall percentage
of votes by Virginia
representatives
AGAINST clean
water in the
112th Congress

%
5
6

Clean
Water
= Good
Business

An oysterman sees
direct benefits of a
cleaner Chesapeake Bay

Courtesy of Lynnhaven Oyster Company

VIRGINIA

H

ap Chalmers understands the importance of
clean water better than most. As the owner
of Lynnhaven Oyster Company in Virginia Beach, Va., his livelihood depends on it.

The oysters from Lynnhaven River were once so renowned
that they were coveted by royalty. But while they may be thought
of as little more than a delicacy to dine on, oysters also serve as
one of nature’s best water filtration systems. The Chesapeake
Bay in Maryland and Virginia, which Lynnhaven River flows into,
once housed such a immense population of oysters that all the
water in the estuary was filtered every few days.

Solution: Improved shoreline buffer zones al-

A number of environmental threats cut short the reign of these
once-famous oysters. These threats included loss of habitat,
over-harvesting and excess water pollution.

allow for commercial shellfishing.

Chalmers recalls when he began his oyster business ten
years ago: “Back then, Virginia Beach was the fastest growing
city in the country and … there were no best management practices in place. The water was cloudy and murky all year round.
Now fall, winter and spring, it's very clear and you can see the
bottom off my dock is about six feet deep.”
In 1998, due to high fecal coliform bacteria levels from faulty
sewage and stormwater management systems in the rapidly
growing city, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
designated the Lynnhaven, Linkhorn and Broad rivers as impaired waters.
With Clean Water Act funding, the Virginia DEQ developed and
implemented a “Total Maximum Daily Load” plan
to limit pollution and restore the health of the
Lynnhaven. Many stakeholders were involved in the plan, including Virginia Beach,
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Army
Corps of Engineers and the local group
Lynnhaven River NOW, to which Chalmers
belongs.
Improved shoreline buffer zones assisted in providing long-term protection from
erosion and runoff after heavy rains. Sew-

leviated erosion and runoff. Generators were fitted
on sewage pump stations to keep them operating
in case of severe weather. Oyster reefs were created for water filtration.

Result: Bacteria levels were reduced enough to

age pump stations were modified with generators to alleviate the
destructive impacts of extreme weather events. And oyster reefs
were created to help the bivalves do what they do best — water
filtration.
Chalmers’ business, which he runs with his son, not only benefits the local economy but the health of the bay. The millions
of oysters they planted this year will filter more than one billion
gallons of water per week.
“The better we do in our business, the cleaner the water gets.
The same for other oystermen, too,” Chalmers says.
These efforts culminated in 2010, when the Lynnhaven River
was removed from the Clean Water Act’s list of impaired waters.
More than 1,450 acres now meet water quality standards to ensure safe consumption of shellfish, the most since
1931, according to Lynnhaven River NOW.
Expressing his gratitude for living and
working on the Lynnhaven River, Chalmers
says, “Because the community has pulled together, with nobody fighting the progress, everyone is for it — the city, the government, the
Army Corps and the citizens. It’s amazing.”

West Virginia
W

est Virginia is home to more than
32,000 miles of streams and
rivers and more than 22,000 acres
of lakes and reservoirs. In 2010, less
than 60 percent of those streams
and rivers were rigorously
assessed; of those, nearly twothirds were impaired. Frequent causes of impairment
are fecal coliform bacteria,
metals such as iron, manganese,
selenium and aluminum, and
high acidity. Less than one percent of
impaired rivers and streams have been
restored to state water quality standards
The state water permitting program has
been widely criticized as ineffective and public
interest groups have petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to take over the
state's program. An investigation by the New
York Times reported that six former and current state environmental department employees
complained that their enforcement efforts had
been “undermined by bureaucratic disorganization, a departmental preference to let polluters
escape punishment if they promise to try harder,
and a revolving door of regulators who leave for
higher-paying jobs at the companies they once
policed."
Support for clean water laws by the state's
congressional delegation has declined precipitously since 1972, when all five representatives
voted in favor of the Clean Water Act. Today,
the delegation has among the worst voting records on clean water laws in Congress, supporting measures to weaken clean water protections
85 percent of the time.

Votes Against
Clean Water
Percentage of representatives from
West Virginia that voted to weaken
clean water laws in the 112th Congress.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following
three bills plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would protect streams from mountaintop removal
coal mining impacts.

SCORE:......................................................... 100%

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency panel to study the economic impacts of several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing potential delays
for safeguards for up to six years.

SCORE: ........................................................ 100%

H.R. 2273 — The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management
Act would stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash disposal in
favor of a non-enforceable state program.

SCORE: ........................................................ 100%

H.R. 2018 — The Clean Water Federalism Act would remove
the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act, dramatically
weakening clean water protections.

SCORE: ........................................................ 100%

Overall percentage of
votes by West Virginia
representatives
AGAINST clean
water in the
112th Congress

%
5
8

WEST VIRGINIA

Rescuing Morris Creek

“O

range and sometimes
white, depending on
what the coal company was
doing, with a horrible smell of
rotten eggs.” That’s how Mike
King describes the pollution that
plagued Morris Creek.
King grew up next to the creek
in a dust-covered Kanawha
County coal camp, where miners lived with their families to be
close to their work. His family
has lived in the area since his
grandfather immigrated here
from Russia in 1913. Now, his
son lives in the house that his
grandfather once inhabited.

from the WVDEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Abandoned Mine Lands program.

The most common way of treating acid mine drainage is by creResult: A significantly reduced amount
ating a natural wastewater system
of heavy metals entering the creek, leading
with holding ponds and limestone
to the return of aquatic life.
channels to absorb heavy metals
Running through the town of
before they reach the creek. Two
Montgomery, Morris Creek was
large
drainage channels lined with
once a vibrant waterway that suplimestone
were
built
along
upper
Morris Creek to prevent the
ported a wide array of creatures such as lizards, minnows and
most
toxic
seeps
of
acid
mine
drainage
from ever entering the
crawfish. At least, it was vibrant, until acid mine drainage from
stream.
abandoned underground mines and poorly reclaimed surface
mines contaminated the creek with heavy metals including iron,
aluminum and manganese.
Under the Clean Water Act, the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection listed the creek as severely impaired
in 1996. An analysis of pollutants in the creek revealed that the
heavy metals needed to be reduced by 1,000 pounds a year.
Along Morris Creek alone, there are several locations where acid
mine drainage was leaking into the creek.
“In the few times we had fish that would try to come up the river,
their gills would actually fall off due to the ... high acidity of the water,” King says. “So for years ... we had no fish at all in the stream.”
Not much was being done to restore the health of the creek
until 2002, when King and the Morris Creek Watershed Association approached the federal Office of Surface Mining and
WVDEP about implementing projects to reduce the amount of
pollution entering the creek.
Due to Morris Creek’s listing under the Clean Water Act, the
Morris Creek Watershed Association was eligible for grants

The project took almost four years to complete, but water quality began to immediately improve, and the water tested well below
the state’s pollution limits for optimal stream health. Today in Morris Creek, trout and other aquatic life are making a comeback.
The health of Morris Creek remains a work in progress. Additional projects to benefit the creek have received federal
grant money to reduce sediment entering the creek and stabilize stream banks. Also on the list is the installation of a hydroturbine on one of the acid mine drainage discharge pipes that
could generate 1,300 watts of electricity to power the water
monitoring equipment.
The success of the project reaches far beyond reducing pollution discharged. “There’s the satisfaction of getting things done,
taking a creek from where it's orange and completely dead to supporting life,” King says. “You are also providing a better opportunity for our future generations to enjoy recreation in an area that
previously hadn’t had that. Lastly, it helps others to understand
stewardship and how to take care of their own property.”

Kentucky

K

entucky has nearly 50,000 miles of rivers
and streams and almost 230,000 acres of
lakes and reservoirs. As of 2010, just 22 percent
of rivers and streams had been assessed by state
officials, with two-thirds found to be impaired by
one or more pollutants. The most frequent causes
of stream impairment are sediment, fecal coliform
bacteria and nutrients that can cause eutrophication and specific conductivity.
Kentucky's water quality program has been
harshly criticized by newspapers in the state for
its "cozy relationship with the coal industry," and
ineffective enforcement program, as evidenced by
the fact that only nine of the nearly 7,000 miles of
rivers and streams listed as impaired have been
restored to state water quality standards. The Lexington Herald-Leader wrote in reaction to a lawsuit filed against coal companies for Clean Water
Act violations in 2011, "state regulators had been
asleep at the wheel for years," to the extent that,
"the state had no way of knowing whether the
coal companies had violated their water pollution
permits."
In 1972, Kentucky's congressional delegation
voted unanimously to enact the Clean Water Act,
but during the 112th Congress, 73 percent of votes
by Kentucky's representatives impacting clean
water laws favored weakening protections.

Votes Against Clean Water
Percentage of representatives from Kentucky that voted to
weaken clean water laws in the 112th Congress.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following
three bills plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would protect streams from mountaintop removal
coal mining impacts.

SCORE:.......................................................... 83%

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency panel to study the economic impacts of several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing potential delays
for safeguards for up to six years.

SCORE: ......................................................... 80%

H.R. 2273 — The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management
Act would stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash disposal in
favor of a non-enforceable state program.

SCORE: ......................................................... 83%

H.R. 2018 — The Clean Water Federalism Act would remove
the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act, dramatically
weakening clean water protections.

SCORE: ...........................................................67%

Overall percentage
of votes by Kentucky
representatives
AGAINST clean
water in the 112th
Congress

lark County in central Kentucky is known for its rolling hills, fertile soil and thoroughbred horses. Snaking 25
miles through the county is
Strodes Creek, a headwater
stream of the South Fork of the
Licking River.

Courtesy of Hal Lee

Threats to water quality in
the creek were pervasive —
­ silt,
bacteria and oxygen-depriving
nutrients had the potential to
render it unsuitable for aquatic
life. The source of this pollution
mostly stemmed from poor agricultural practices and failing
septic tanks.

collected in his front yard.
Through the Clean Water
Act’s Nonpoint Source Pollution Program, Jones received
a brand-new septic system,
properly installed on flat
ground. Three of his neighbors also received a full septic system upgrade. In all, 86
septic systems in the Strodes
Creek watershed either received minor repairs or were
fully upgraded.

John Jones had one of those failing septic tanks. Although he
spent the majority of his career meeting complex demands as
an explosives operator for a U.S. Army weapons storage facility,
nothing could have prepared him for the issues he faced back
home.

“Hats off to the people in charge of this project because they
realized people were having some severe problems and were
able to correct it,” Jones says, perhaps remembering the pool
of sewage that would collect near his home.

“For over 20 years there were times you couldn’t take a shower or flush the toilet because there just wasn’t anywhere for the
water to go,” Jones explains.

Shandra Cecil, the director of the Strodes Creek Conservancy, explains how an assortment of minor projects like the ones
in Jones’ community benefit the overall health of the watershed.

Because his septic tank was improperly installed on a hill,
it routinely filled with rainwater and overflowed during heavy
storms. Each time this occurred, an unwelcome pool of sewage

“All of the small nonpoint source issues, when put together,
can really do damage to the creek,” she says. “But regardless
of how small, eventually [projects] will start creating cumulative
benefits.” The conservancy has implemented a number of projects including planting trees, controlling agricultural pollution,
repairing septic tanks and restoring streams.

Problem: In the Strodes Creek watershed, failing

Nitrate and phosphorus pollution were reduced collectively
by 4,000 pounds per year, and silt contamination was reduced
by eight tons each year. From a significant reduction in pollutants of Strodes Creek to peace of mind for homeowners
like Jones, this watershed project has had impressive results
across the board.

“There is reduced algae and the odor from the creek has
subsided,” Cecil says. “We had a landowner call our mayor
and say they’re not sure what we’re doing, but that they are
enjoying the creek more.”

North Carolina

N

orth Carolina is home to almost 40,000
miles of rivers and streams and more
than 300,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs.
About one-third of the rivers and streams
have been assessed by the state, with more
than 30 percent of those found to be impaired
for one or more criteria. The most common
causes of stream impairment are high levels
of turbidity, mercury and E. coli.
Just one to two percent of impaired
streams and rivers have been cleaned up in
North Carolina. The ability of the state to
make substantial further progress is questionable following the enactment of Senate Bill
781 by the General Assembly in 2011, which
cut the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
by nearly 90 percent and conservation funding
by 85 percent. The bill also forbade the state
from enacting protections that are stronger
than minimum federal standards.
During the 112th Congress, U.S. representatives from North Carolina voted against
bills that weakened clean water protections
more often than legislators from any other
southeastern state. Still, more than half of
their votes were in favor of weaking protections. In contrast, North Carolina's representatives voted unanimously in favor of the
Clean Water Act in 1972.

Votes Against Clean Water
Percentage of representatives from North Carolina that voted to
weaken clean water laws in the 112th Congress.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following
three bills plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would protect streams from mountaintop removal
coal mining impacts.

SCORE:...........................................................62%

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency panel to study the economic impacts of several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing potential delays
for safeguards for up to six years.

SCORE: ..........................................................50%

H.R. 2273 — The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management
Act would stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash disposal in
favor of a non-enforceable state program.

SCORE: .......................................................... 55%

H.R. 2018 — The Clean Water Federalism Act would remove
the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act, dramatically
weakening clean water protections.

SCORE: .......................................................... 54%

Overall percentage of
votes by North Carolina
representatives
AGAINST clean water
in the 112th Congress

%
8
5

NORTH CAROLINA

Four Projects
for Fourth Creek
A horse-owning couple helps
clean up an impaired stream

ob and Jill Kinser claim they have the best well water around, and they’re quick to offer a glass to anyone to prove it. In fact, the only thing more apparent
than the Kinsers' hospitality is their hardworking nature.
Looking for a place in the country where they could keep
horses, the Kinsers moved to their current Statesville home,
in the western Piedmont region of North Carolina, in 1986.
Their 23-acre property runs along Fourth Creek.
In 1998, the North Carolina Division of Water Quality designated almost 24 miles of the creek as impaired due to the
presence of fecal coliform bacteria and visual turbidity, or
murky water, a sign of pollution.
When the Kinsers became aware of
the problem, they decided to take action
to ensure they had clean water for their
horses and met with the Iredell County
Soil and Water Conservation district. Using Clean Water Act funding, the county
was able to cover 75 percent of the cost
for projects to improve water quality, while
the Kinsers made up the difference.
The Kinsers’ first project involved installing two watering units that prevent
debris contamination and regulate water
temperature. Next, they built fencing to
keep their horses from getting into Fourth Creek and its tributary, mitigating the animals’ potential to contribute to the creek’s
contamination.
Additional projects allowed the Kinsers to continue reducing
their environmental impact. They built more fencing and a trail
for their horses to prevent runoff from flowing from the horse corrals into the creeks. And they constructed a four-bin composter
to contain the waste their six horses produce every day, which
they now use for fertilizer.
Using the same basic arrangement, the Kinsers completed
four water-quality improvement projects on their land from 2005
to 2008. Today, the goal-oriented couple continues to find the
balance between personal livelihood and environmental stewardship.
When Jill Kinser reflects on their busy years, hard work and

Problem: Erosion from agricultural activities
from livestock pastures near Fourth Creek led to increased fecal coliform bacteria and unclear water.

Result: The river has cleared up, and bacteria
levels have lowered to a level that meets water quality standards. One section of Fourth Creek has been
completely removed from the impaired list while
other sections have been partially delisted.

Photos courtesy of Bob and Jill Kinser

B

consistent success, she speaks proudly of her husband’s tireless work as he humbly nods and smiles. “He did the work in
every case, every project. He built that composter. He leveled
every pound of gravel, ran all the water lines, and built the entire
fence. He’s part engineer, part old farm boy,” she says.
While the funding provided the professional blueprints and materials to complete the projects, it was their own hard labor that
helped the Kinsers realize their goals. Their hard work also paid
off for the health of Fourth Creek, as segments of the creek are no
longer considered impaired for turbidity and fecal coliform.
Bob Kinser offers a simple summary of his experience: “It really makes life a lot easier, to get around and do what needs to
be done: our chores. There’s just no downside to any of it.”

Tennessee

T

ennessee is home to more than 60,000
miles of rivers and streams and almost
600,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs. As of
2010, half of the state's rivers and streams
had been assessed by state officials, about 40
percent of which were found to be impaired
based on one or more criteria. The most
frequent causes of stream impairment were
high levels of E. coli, sedimentation, habitat
alteration and dissolved oxygen. Less than
100 of the 13,000 miles of impaired rivers
and streams in Tennessee have been restored
to good condition.
Tennessee's decision-makers have increasingly supported measures to weaken
clean water protections in recent years. At
the state level, there were 16 different bills to
weaken clean water laws introduced in the
legislature in 2009. At the federal level, Tennessee's members of Congress have also been
increasingly hostile to clean water protections, voting in favor of bills to weaken them
78 percent of the time. In 1972, when the
Clean Water Act came before the House of
Representatives, Tennessee’s delegation voted
unanimously in favor of the act.

Votes Against Clean Water
Percentage of representatives from Tennessee that voted to
weaken clean water laws in the 112th Congress.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following
three bills plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would protect streams from mountaintop removal
coal mining impacts.

SCORE:........................................................... 78%

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency panel to study the economic impacts of several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing potential delays
for safeguards for up to six years.

SCORE: .......................................................... 78%

H.R. 2273 — The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management
Act would stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash disposal in
favor of a non-enforceable state program.

SCORE: .......................................................... 89%

H.R. 2018 — The Clean Water Federalism Act would remove
the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act, dramatically
weakening clean water protections.

SCORE: .......................................................... 78%

Overall percentage of
votes by Tennessee
representatives
AGAINST clean
water in the
112th Congress

78%

TENNESSEE

Good,
Clean FUN

Courtesy

of Rebe

cca Sudd

uth

Two river guides
know the economic
benefit of clean water

rym Griswold and John Shores,
better known as Uncle Johnny,
are the main force behind Uncle
Johnny’s Nolichucky Hostel and
Outfitters in Erwin, Tenn. They see
the Nolichucky River as an old
friend, one that they’re happy to introduce to everyone they meet.
When Shores, an avid kayaker,
opened the doors of his hostel for
Appalachian Trail hikers in 1998, he
recognized that his location next to
the Nolichucky gave him an opportunity to serve a greater population
of outdoor enthusiasts. Both he and
Griswold have spent many days paddling the Nolichucky over the years.
The men also make it their business to
know the Nolichucky’s old habits and
the ways it changes.
Griswold explains how even a newcomer to the river can note how the Nolichucky has changed from its old ways.

Courtesy of Uncle Johnny's Hostel

G

Problem:

Impaired portions of the
Nolichucky River from agricultural runoff
threatened water quality and the local
recreation tourism industry.

Solution:

Clean Water Act grant
support helped farmers implement “best
management practices,” reducing runoff
and other sources of water pollution.

“If you come out onto the Noli and
look out across the stains on the rocks,
you’ll see that they’re watermarks,” Griswold says. “You’ll see
where how over the past 30 years, the river level has decreased
dramatically. The evidence is right there on the stone.”
Rural development on the Toe and Cane rivers has impacted
the area where the rivers converge into the Nolichucky.
“Quite sadly, the watershed has been damaged, and there’s
just not that much water coming down now,” he summarizes.
In 2002, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation listed different portions of the Nolichucky as impaired
for E. coli bacteria and high levels of sediment. The pollution
was mostly due to poor agricultural practices.
Under the auspices of the Clean Water Act, county, state and
federal agencies provided technical and financial assistance
to local farmers so they could implement various “best management practices” on their farms, including taking measures

to protect heavy use areas, installing fencing and alternative
watering facilities to prevent livestock from entering streams.
Water quality along the Nolichucky gradually improved,
prompting TDEC to remove
the three Nolichucky River segments from the list of impaired
waters in 2008.

“All of the state or government involvement I’ve seen has
been very positive. I’m really impressed with how clean they keep
the river here,” Griswold says.

Griswold and Shores emphasize the importance of maintaining the fundamental resources that drive the tourism-based
economy. They and other Nolichucky River rafting guides run an
extensive river clean-up projects when business allows.
“Everyone wants it to be a very attractive resource,” says Griswold, who notes that many boaters make it a habit to participate
in river clean-ups.
“Most of us were not in that mindset when we first got involved in outdoor adventure. We approve of people going into
the wilderness, whether they know these principles or not," says
Griswold. "If they keep coming, then they can develop the passion that will lead them to adopt those values. It will come from
time simply spent outside.”

South Carolina
S

outh Carolina has nearly
30,000 miles of rivers and
streams and more than 400,000
acres of lakes and reservoirs. Less
than 20 percent of rivers and streams
have been assessed by the state, but of
those that have been assessed, twothirds were found to be impaired for
one or more water quality criteria.
The most common causes of stream
impairment are high levels of fecal
coliform, dissolved oxygen and acidity. About six percent of rivers and
streams once listed as impaired have
so far been cleaned up.
In 1972, South Carolina's Congressional delegation voted unanimously to enact the Clean Water Act.
During the 112th Congress, on the
other hand, 83 percent of votes by
South Carolina's representatives on
bills impacting clean water laws were
in favor of weakening protections.

Votes Against Clean Water
Percentage of representatives from South Carolina that voted to
weaken clean water laws in the 112th Congress.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following
three bills plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would protect streams from mountaintop removal
coal mining impacts.

SCORE:.......................................................... 83%

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency panel to study the economic impacts of several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing potential delays
for safeguards for up to six years.

SCORE: ......................................................... 83%

H.R. 2273 — The Coal Residuals Reuse and Management
Act would stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash disposal in
favor of a non-enforceable state program.

SCORE: ........................................................ 100%

H.R. 2018 — The Clean Water Federalism Act would remove
the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act, dramatically
weakening clean water protections.

SCORE: ......................................................... 83%

Overall percentage of
votes by South Carolina
representatives
AGAINST clean
water in the
112th Congress

%
3
8

SOUTH CAROLINA

Problem: Fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus
and decreased oxygen levels were degrading Stevens Creek, making the water unsuitable for aquatic
life or drinking water.

Solution: Dairy farm implemented pasture graz-

ing management, fenced off streambanks and providing alternative water sources for livestock, planted vegetation creekside. Other farms implemented
other agricultural best management practices.

atson Dorn runs Hickory Hill Farm and hails from a long
line of South Carolina farmers dating back to 1774.

So when the Stevens Creek watershed in the South Carolina Piedmont, where the Dorn farm is located, started showing
signs of pollution, the Dorn family acted.
“We know that if we don’t take care of the land, it cannot take
care of us,” says Dorn.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that 85 to
95 percent of the pollutants threatening the Stevens Creek watershed were attributable to agricultural practices. Dorn remembers that a few decades ago, when most of the area’s livestock
drank directly from the creeks, “the water quality was not what it
should have been.”
In 1995, with funds allocated through the Clean Water Act,
Dorn’s community was given a way to improve its streams. The
project, led by the Edgefield Soil and Water Conservation District, focused on improving water quality through agricultural
“best management practices” at two livestock operations located near the streams, including Dorn’s dairy farm.
At the time, Hickory Hill’s ponds were predominantly unfenced, alternative livestock watering
systems were unfeasible and the farm was
subject to weather-related pollution problems.
The rainstorms that watered the grass for
Dorn’s cows also naturally increased agricultural stream pollution. Heavy runoff often carried large amounts of feed from the commodity sheds, used at farms like Hickory Hill, into
nearby Sleepy Creek where pollutants began a

detrimental journey downstream.
“A small family farm can’t go out and do a lot of the things
that need to be done to improve the environment, even in good
economic times,” Dorn says. “Once we got around that hurdle,
it was a no-brainer.”
The Dorn family was able to set its clean-water commitment
into action by fencing off their streams and ponds, constructing watering troughs and laying asphalt around the commodity
sheds to prevent runoff. And with these better practices, “we
no longer have to be concerned about anything from our farm
contaminating the streams.”
The project was a success, as post-project water quality
sampling results showed significant reductions in fecal coliform
bacteria downstream at both the poultry and dairy farm stations.
On the Dorn’s farm, pasture grazing management and animal
fencing significantly reduced fecal coliform bacteria counts in
the stream.
Dorn’s relief is rooted in the invaluable knowledge that his livelihood does not come at the cost of the environment. Overall, he
describes the project as “extremely successful,” but the pride in
his voice suggests that the full scope of success
cannot be measured. For Dorn, the benefits go
well beyond the improvement in the water quality of the Stevens Creek watershed. Admiring
the healthy coats of his cows and the green
fields of his farm, he knows he is continuing his
family tradition of caring for the land.

What is the
greatest benefit
of having the
Clean Water Act
on his side? That's
simple, Dorn says:
“Peace of mind.”

What is the greatest benefit of having the
Clean Water Act on his side? That’s simple,
Dorn says. “Peace of mind."

Georgia
G

eorgia has more than 70,000
miles of rivers and streams and
more than 400,000 acres of lakes and
reservoirs. Less than 20 percent of
those rivers and streams were assessed by the state in 2010, but of
those that have, and well over half of
those were found to be impaired for
one or more water quality criteria.
The most common causes of stream
impairment were high levels of fecal
coliform, dissolved oxygen and mercury.
Just over one percent of impaired rivers and
streams have been cleaned up so far.

Votes Against Clean Water
Percentage of representatives from Georgia that voted to weaken clean
water laws in the 112th Congress.

A number of bills were introduced in
the 2012 state legislative session that were
designed to weaken clean water protections,
however none of those bills were passed into
law. Those bills included efforts to fast-track
the wastewater discharge permitting process,
roll back rules for disposing of septic waste,
and weaken the state Environmental Protection Division's enforcement responsibility.

H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following three bills

In 1972, Georgia Representative Benjamin Blackburn was the only representative
in the Southeast to vote against the Clean
Water Act, however the state's delegation
in Congress has shifted toward Blackburn's
anti-regulatory views since then. In the
112th Congress, 69 percent of votes cast
by Georgia's representatives on bills that
impact clean water laws were in support of
weakening those protections.

stop the EPA’s ability to regulate coal ash disposal in favor of a nonenforceable state program.

plus a provision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would
protect streams from mountaintop removal coal mining impacts.

H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency
panel to study the economic impacts of several standards such as the
EPA’s mercury rule, causing potential delays for safeguards for up to six
years.

Overall percentage of votes
by Georgia representatives
AGAINST clean water in
the 112th Congress

69%

GEORGIA

Photos courtesy of City

of Griffin

Ditching Storm Water
D

One man’s mission to improve waters for wildlife and communities

ucks and Styrofoam cups have something in common —
at least, for Dr. Brant Keller they do. The director of Public
Works and Utilities for the city of Griffin, Ga., Keller is an avid
duck hunter, and in visiting many waterways around the country,
he often finds ducks and debris competing for the same space.
“Water is a finite source. The water that we’re managing is the very
same prehistoric dinosaur water,
so we’ve got to manage such a
significant resource really well,” he
says. “It took the Clean Water Act
in 1972 to clean up the cesspools
we called rivers ... but we have a
long way to go.”

two years of sampling revealed effective trends in the removal of
water contaminants and hopeful predictions for the future.
“It’s been a win for everyone,” Keller says. “The runoff was
completely eliminated from the subdivision so that homes were
no longer flooded, the developer was also able to utilize the pond
for water retention, and overall water
quality was improved in the basin.”

A series of stormwater
detention ponds were created to prevent
runoff and water pollution.

Griffin has since constructed
two additional stormwater detention ponds and is building a fourth.
The series of ponds act as a constructed wetland system, providing habitat for wildlife and reducing
nitrogen and phosphorus contamination throughout the watershed.

Following the establishment of
Result: Stormwater management
the Georgia Stormwater Utility in
Keller emphasizes that commuprevented floods and improved water
1997, Keller brought his determinity education played a critical role
quality and wildlife habitat.
nation to the city of Griffin in the
in the completion of this project.
Flint River Basin. He quickly found
From the beginning, the public was
a number of community water coneducated about the need for mitigating flooding and the importainment and quality issues that needed to be addressed. In tance of community partnerships. Classroom presentations,
Griffin’s Waterford subdivision, for example, Keller discovered stream clean-ups and the Adopt-A-Stream initiative were three
that the drainage system could not handle the amount of runoff of the most successful means of citizen involvement, according
it faced during heavy rains.
to Keller.
In order to address this problem, Keller directed the construction of a regional stormwater detention pond, established by a
public-private partnership and funded by a county sales tax.
Keller’s project resulted in several successful projects that utilized grant support through the Clean Water Act for future water
quality assessment.
Water quality monitoring in the Flint River Basin included the
collection and testing of storm water samples from three different locations in close proximity to the detention pond. The initial

“It may be a pie-in-the-sky hope," says Keller, "but if we could
get both environmentalists and politicians to sit at the same table and come to a logical conclusion, we could provide a better
resource for everyone at the end of the day.”
"By promoting the importance of watershed management, the
relationship between the Griffin community and the entire river
basin has been improved," Keller says. And when ducks don’t
have to compete with debris for space, wildlife, hunters and the
communities they live in all benefit.

Alabama
A

labama has more than 75,000 miles of rivers
and streams and nearly 500,000 acres of lakes
and reservoirs. Less than 15 percent of those rivers and streams were assessed by the state in 2010,
with one-third of those found to be impaired for
one or more water quality criteria. The most common causes of stream impairment were high levels
of sediment, fecal coliform bacteria, oxygen depletion and mercury. Just 50 miles of impaired rivers
and streams have been cleaned up so far.
The Alabama Department of Environmental
Management has been widely criticized for failure to respond to citizen complaints, inspect sites
with Clean Water Act permits and issue penalties
to violators. The state has also
Votes Against Clean Water
been criticized for not providing adequate funding to ADEM
Percentage of representatives from Alabama that voted to weaken clean water laws
in the 112th Congress.
to hire enough inspectors to keep
H.R. 3409 — The War on Coal Act includes the following three bills plus a protrack of the tens of thousands of
vision to prevent an Office of Surface Mining rule that would protect streams from
permits in the state. In 2010, 14
mountaintop removal coal mining impacts.
organizations petitioned the U.S.
SCORE:.......................................................................................86%
Environmental Protection Agency
H.R. 2401 — The TRAIN Act would create a duplicative interagency panel to study
to revoke Alabama's authority to
the economic impacts of several standards such as the EPA’s mercury rule, causing
regulate water permits.
potential delays for safeguards for up to six years.
Alabama's representatives in
the 112th Congress had the most
consistent record of voting in favor
of bills to weaken clean water laws
of any state in the Southeast, voting against clean water 87 percent
of the time. The state's representatives were not always so hostile to
water regulations, having unanimously voted in favor of the Clean
Water Act in 1972.

Overall percentage
of votes by Alabama
representatives AGAINST
clean water in the
112th Congress

87%

ALABAMA

Fit for a
Swim, Again
A community helps restore Flint Creek

L

With a degree from Auburn University and six years of military service, Lee
combines civil service and efficiency
in his work. He knows that clean water
plays a critical role in better farming and pursues water quality improvement in both of his
roles as north vice president of the Alabama
Farmers Federation and chairman of the
board for the Flint Creek Watershed Conservancy District.
Lee fondly remembers the summer days when he
would go swimming in the creek after long hours of farm work.
When he returned home from military service in 1975, however,
that was no longer an option.
Since the 1950s, Flint Creek had been polluted by stormwater runoff from agricultural and urban areas, making the creek
unsafe for recreation and wildlife. In 1994, a Watershed Conservancy District was established and plans were developed to
clean up the creek with the assistance of federal and state agencies, as well as local soil and water
conservation districts. Funding for
the project included grant money
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Clean
Water Act, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and corporate donors.
85 percent of the farmers in the
area received funds from the EPA
to apply “best management practices” on their farms. Farmers created dry stack structures to control
animal waste, installed dead bird
composter to kill bacteria, and adopted no-till farming to minimize
erosion.
“We showed them what the

Problem: Rural and urban runoff contributed to
reduced oxygen levels in the lower part of the Flint
River in Alabama.

Solution: Farmers were educated and funded to
institute agricultural best management practices.

Result: Oxygen levels were improved in the river,

and in 2006, a 28-mile segment of the Flint River was
removed from the list of impaired waters.

problem was and how to fix it, and had tremendous cooperation
with the people involved in the county,” Lee says. “When people
are educated and they know what needs to be done, they will
step up and do the job.”
At Lee’s cattle farm, areas near the heavily-used watering
troughs were lined with gravel to prevent bare muddy patches
from washing downhill during rain, improving drainage and preventing erosion to keep animal waste from entering the creek.
Photos courtesy of Hal Lee

ess than a mile from Flint Creek in Morgan County, Ala., Hal
Lee farms the land his family has owned for more than 70
years. Originally hog farmers, his family
switched to dairy farming in the 1950s.
Today, Lee still raises cattle alongside
his son who runs a poultry farm on the
family’s property.

Through the use of these “best
management practices,” Flint
Creek came back to life. The duckweed and algae that choked the
creek as a result of pollution began
to disappear. The difference was
striking as the water turned from
brown to clear.
Describing the educational
outreach aspect of the project,
Lee says that “people’s attitude
changed after being educated because they see the need for clean
water. The Flint Creek community
today is more environmentally conscious than they have ever been.”

REFERENCES
The Clean Water Act: Making A Difference for Real People for Over 40 Years
1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. EPA’s 2008 Report on the Environment.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA/600/R-07/045F.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/roe
2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 40 Years of Achievements, 1970-2010. http://www.
epa.gov/40th/achieve.html
3) Ibid.
4) Duhigg, Charles. “Toxic Waters: Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering.”
New York Times. September 12, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.
html
5) “America’s Sewage System and the Price of Optimism.” Time Magazine. August 1, 1969.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901182-1,00.html
6) American Society of Civil Engineers: Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. Wastewater:
Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/
wastewater
7) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009. “EPA’s Healthy Watershed Initiative.”
Document number EPA841-F-09-001.

Dirty Politics and the Clean Water Act
All descriptive information and voting records on House bills provided through http://www.
thomas.loc.gov

State-specific Water Information
Photo by Eric Kennedy

Provided through U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Summary of Imparied
Waters and TMDL Information website at http://ofmpub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_
nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T